Arwin Arni wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 15:49:10 +0530: > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 09:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >Arwin Arni wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 15:45:04 +0530: > >>On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:36 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote: > >>>Stefan Sperling<s...@elego.de> writes: > >>> > >>>>On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:12:22PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:01 PM, Noorul Islam K M wrote: > >>>>>>>+svn bisect start [-rN[:M]] > >>>>>>>+ > >>>>>>When we discussed you had a concern that above syntax is different from > >>>>>>the normal svn sub command syntax. Is this finalized? > >>>>>> > >>>>>I wouldn't say it's finalized.. I simply wrote down a spec as a rough > >>>>>draft. > >>>>>I'm sure the community will have some ideas about this. (Like > >>>>>implementing > >>>>>a sub-subcommand interface of some sort.) > >>>>I'd say just have a set of long options that are mutually exclusive, > >>>>one for each "subcommand". > >>>> > >>>>svn bisect --start > >>>>svn bisect --good > >>>>etc. > >>>> > >>>>This will be easiest to do with the current argument parsing code, and > >>>>also means people can type things in any order they like (--good -r42, > >>>>or -r42 --good). > >>>Do we really need to use -r to mention revision? > >>> > >>>How about --good<rev> --bad<rev> ? > >>> > >>>Is this complicated with the existing parser? > >>> > >>>Thanks and Regards > >>>Noorul > >>Yeah, the current system will not work well with --good<rev>. > >> > >Huh? > I meant to say in order to fully utilize the existing -r format > (revsion number, date, keywords like HEAD BASE etc) we can't accept > something like svn bisect --good 12345 or svn bisect --good HEAD.. > We need to accept svn bisect --good -r <revision>
Why? (aka: "I understand what your claim is. Could you corroborate it?")
